 Hello and welcome to this special debate organised by the World Economic Forum and Franz Wienkeert in Davos. It's been established that 2014 was the world's warmest year on record. On its own, it may not prove that the climate is changing, but what if I tell you that the top three warmest years throughout recorded history have all happened in the past decade? Scientists say it's evidence that the climate is changing, and they say humanity is responsible by pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Without radical action, there are warnings the globe is heading for a climate disaster. Well, leaders will be gathering in Paris at the end of this year to avert it. Each country will bring their individual contributions to the negotiating table, which will then be baked into a worldwide agreement. But will this bottom-up approach actually work? In this debate, with a little over 10 months to go before Paris, we're asking how a comprehensive global climate deal can be achieved and how to make it stronger. From Kyoto to Copenhagen via Lima and onwards to Paris, the history of international climate talks have had stops and starts. Even scientists have been at odds over the risks associated with global warming, and as the world sets its sights on a new deal to limit climate change, policymakers and negotiators will have to weigh up the following figures. World leaders have committed themselves to limit the rise in global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius by 2100. There are warnings the world would face catastrophic climate change beyond that key level, although some say the threshold is actually lower. At current emission rates, scientists warn the world is currently heading for an increase of up to 4.8 degrees in global temperatures by 2100 around twice the recommended level. At current rates, 2034 is the year in which the world will have emitted enough CO2 to raise temperatures by 2 degrees. That's almost an entire lifetime earlier than the target. Scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say greenhouse gas emissions need to fall by as much as 70% by 2050 to meet the 2-degree target. By 2100, emissions will need to be at zero. 196 is the number of countries that will be meeting in Paris to reach a global climate deal. The question is whether they'll reach an agreement that will make a difference. Now, there are multiple stakeholders when it comes to this issue, and to debate how a comprehensive climate deal can be achieved, we have a stellar cast with us here in Davos. I want to thank you all for taking part in this debate, and let me just introduce you to the panel members. Philippe Calderon is the former president of Mexico and now the chairman of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, a group that argues that action on climate will provide an economic boost. Laurent Fabius is the foreign minister of France, which will, of course, be playing host to the Paris Conference in December of this year. Christiana Figueras is the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Michel Yes is the chief executive officer of Swiss Ray, which is doing a lot of work when it comes to climate change and the insurance risks associated with it. Fakir Sibesma is the chairman and chief executive officer of Royal DSM. He's a strong voice within business for a transition away from fossil fuels and for a global carbon pricing framework. Thank you, once again, to all five of you. I want to start talking about where we are now. In January of 2015, with little over 10 months to go. And I want to start by asking Christiana Figueras about the climate negotiations that wrapped up in Lima in Peru at the end of last year. What was the main takeaway from that conference and what does it mean as we now look ahead to Paris? I think the main takeaway from Lima is that countries continue to be committed, and I dare say, actually, truly putting up their sleeves to get into the last stretch. They have been working on this agreement for several years, every single one of them, even those that are finding it even more difficult to find their space. None of them have said that they're out of this game. They are all completely committed to coming to Paris and finding a climate agreement that is going to have to be a very different country and a very different agreement to what we had on the Kyoto Protocol. One way of looking at it is a house with many rooms, not like the Kyoto Protocol, that we had a house with two rooms. It's going to have to be a house with many rooms. And how do you accommodate the variety of different national circumstances and different economies that there are in the world? That is one of the big challenges. And also, how do you move forward in the timeline and the scale that science demands? And that, I think, is the major challenge. As you said in your beginning, how do we ensure that this agreement is not just a collection of very good efforts from both governments and private sector, but that it actually does have in it the transformational force that is going to allow us to make a difference? All right, that's something that we're going to be discussing in this debate, I hope, how we actually can raise the ambitions ahead of Paris. Before we start, though, in earnest with that conversation, I want to ask Laurent Fabius about something called the Paris Alliance. The European Union has called for this thing called the Paris Alliance. Basically, the European Union wants to build a consensus around a climate deal. Do you think that this consensus is building now from your perspective? I'm going to speak English. I hope so. So far, consensus is concerned. In the recent years, there have been three major changes, and we're not always aware of that. First, there is less and less climate skepticism because of science, and it's a major shift. Second, the private companies now, many of them, most of them are committed, which was not the case before. And third, the political leaders, most of them are committed. Therefore, when you have that, it's a dissolution, but it's already an asset. Now, what are we expecting for Paris? Four things, which are very difficult to achieve because consensus is necessary. 196 parties. First, we have, and that's the basic element, to reach a new legal framework for after 2020. It's the so-called legally binding agreement, A. B, before Paris, every single nation will deliver its national commitment, which will set what are its ambitions and goals so far as gas emissions are concerned. Therefore, we shall have a sort of addition. Three, nothing is possible if we don't have financing. The figures are very high, but we have, in parallel to Paris, to be able to say, well, ladies and gentlemen, these figures will be available. And force, and it's the point which you were touching, we have decided in Lima to deliver a Lima Paris section agenda. What does it mean? It means that, not the government, but the local authorities, businesses, public and private investors, international financial institutions and others, they will deliver elements to foster the transition to a low-carbon and climate resilient economy. And these four elements are the basis for a success in Paris. Philippe Calderon, you have an experience of international negotiations as the former president of Mexico. From your perspective, what stands in the way now, as I say, in January 2015, of a comprehensive climate deal in Paris? What needs to be resolved in the months looking ahead? Well, one thing is what the minister of view is saying, the sense that money is required to finance the change. But beyond that, there is another big obstacle, in my opinion. And it is the general perception that taking action on climate change implies a huge economic cost, either for governments, for people, for companies. And for that reason, people, companies and government, just they don't like to take action. It's expensive, or it sounds to be expensive. But the good news is, according to the report we produced, the new climate economy, on the global commissions on the economy and climate, in which Michelle and myself are members, Professor Lord Nicholas Stern, he present as chairman, we are with research and we demonstrated that it is possible to have economic growth, job creation, poverty reduction, and at the same time to tackle climate change. But the condition is that we need to take very brave actions, very bold decisions, smart choices, to change three big systems, cities, energy and land uses. But if we change those systems, for instance, a new model of cities in which one billion more people will live in the next 15 years, it is not gonna be in this sprawling model with a hundred square kilometers expanded of cities, but it must be in more coordinated, compact cities, connected cities, more oriented towards the use of massive transportation means and less to individual cards. If we do so, if we switch towards renewable energy, low carbon emissions, we will be able to get not only climate change responsibility and we can tackle climate change, but also we will have economic growth and we will have jobs. Why? Because we can foster innovation, which is the most powerful engine of economic growth. We will foster the efficiency of natural resources beyond the efficiency of capital labor, for instance, which is the traditional speech of economists. And we can increase at the same time, technology and investment in infrastructure. And let me finish with this. If we follow this current model of high intensive carbon emission, we will spend roughly $90 trillion in infrastructure. Well, if we invest in the other model, the new climate economy, we will invest roughly $90 trillion as well. So if we are going to spend such amount of money, let's do the right thing in the new model, but we need to demonstrate that you cannot, you should not be afraid that you are not going to hurt the economic growth doing the right things. Michel, yes, Swiss Ray advises countries and also sub-state actors on how to mitigate climate change and also what the potential costs of climate change could be. What kind of sense do you get from the clients that you have? What kind of sense of urgency do you get from the governmental side? Do countries understand the risks and are they willing to act to mitigate them? No, they definitely understand the risk. I think there is a good understanding about what we are facing. To be honest, we as an industry, we don't need to be motivated to address also these kind of issues because we don't ensure climate change. Let's be clear. It's not something that can be insured because that would be a fantastic solution. Then you can close everything and the insurance are taking the burden. And you could go bust, essentially. That's what you said. Exactly. And I could go home. But we insured the consequence of that and what is extremely important in the debate that we have these countries is also to put a price tag on the consequences of the decision which are taken or the decision which are not taken. And that definitely brings the debate to a level which is an interesting one. Then comes the famous debate in which we need to find a compromise, if I may say, between some of the consequence which are a catastrophe which may happen each 10 years, each 15 years and the democratic written in a country in which the election are happening each four years or each six years. And we need to bring the people to understand that these two horizons are compatible if you want to address really the future challenge of this planet. But the main contribution that we bring in the debate is the price tag that we put on the table about decision. And we are, I would say, credible enough to be quite neutral in the scientific debate that the price tag is not too much discussed. And I think that brings the debate to something which is interesting. And if I may conclude on something else, that's the liability side of the insurance industry. You may know that we have also assets which are covering the liability. And these assets are enormous and they are often of any kind of opportunities currently, to be honest, because of the low yield environment. And as President Calderon said, we need to invest in infrastructure. There is a fantastic match between the assets of the insurance sector and the infrastructure need. And let's make sure that the rules of the game correspond to what I would say are the political intention in that respect. Because I think that's also a way in which our industry can contribute. So not only on the liability side, but also on the asset side by helping this planet to invest strongly in infrastructure. Fakie Sieversma, I want to turn to you next. We heard from Minister Fabius that he at least believes that companies and multinationals, for instance, are becoming more aware of this climate change issue and the need to do something about it. Is that your reading as well within the business community? Are businesses now more aware of the climate change risks? Well, there's a very good question you ask. And I'm wondering also at this very moment, what this audience and what the viewers of the television program are thinking. Ninety-eight percent of the scientists in the world are convinced that we have a huge problem. If you do polls under the population, we get a little bit 50-50 percentage. So I'm sure that our viewers at this moment are saying, well, how big is the problem? And I think the scientists say the problem is big. The media sometimes give pros and cons like media's need to do. And that confuses some of the television watchers. So awareness is not as high as it should be? That is the reason why businesses need to step up. To make also clear, we have an issue and create a fertile ground on which politicians can make next steps. Because let's be honest, the LSA or the White House or the UN building is not taking care of the emissions. Companies are taking care of the emissions. So we need to take a step forward, even when politicians have not yet agreed with each other. And on that ground, it is much easier for politicians because they have to mandate for legislation, of course, not companies, to make a legislation and to make the next steps forward. Because we as companies cannot allow to postpone the problem and to give it to a next generation. The next generation, they will spend the fortune and they will have a big problem in their society. And I think it's our responsibility not to do that. And then the good news is, we have a president called Ronset. All research shows that if we are addressing climate change, we can have economic growth at the same moment. And we as businesses, and we discussed that also this week here in Davos, have concrete steps which we have in mind to take in that road to Paris. Christiana Figueroz, I saw you not in there as Faike Sibersma was talking. What's your reaction? Well, it's very important. You know, what Faike just said is, business needs to take a leadership role and really needs to lead the charge. It's a very important statement because I have watched over 20 years that I have been in this discussion very much of a you first attitude where businesses have been saying for a long time, quite rightly so, governments, you first give us regulatory certainty and then we're gonna come on board. And the government's turning around and going, well, I'm quite sure that I can jump into the cold water because I need to make sure that my country, my economy, my businesses are gonna be competitive with respect to my neighbors. So this you first has led us into a very, very difficult dynamic which is the result that we're seeing right now. And so to hear businesses stand up and go, well, we know that governments are getting there slowly, very slowly, but they're moving in the right direction. And in the meantime, we're going to take leadership and they can take leadership, let's be clear, to a certain point because in order to make the kinds of shifts of capital that Michael is talking about, Michelle is talking about is actually they need much more to know what is the long-term goal going to be so that those assets from the insurance companies but not just insurance companies from most of the large institutional investors and asset holders can actually shift in and align with these 90 trillion that President Calderon has been speaking about. So that shift has to occur and that has to be hand-in-hand government with business together. We can no longer forward the you go first and I will follow attitude. We're just run out of time for that one. All right, lady and gentlemen, we're gonna take a short break now but we will be back shortly with more from this climate change debate underway in Davos. Do stay with us. Time to take a sip of water. That's the water. The water is water here, fantastic. Is that yours? This is mine, no? I think it's yours. It's yours. All right. The other side for you. You want some more? Yes. Can I give you water? Yes, dear. Yep. Thank you. Thank you, dear. There we go. Everyone's hydrated? Yes. They say that Davos is a marathon and we should keep hydrated considering that. Okay. Welcome back to Davos and welcome back to this debate on how to reach a global comprehensive climate change deal by the end of 2015 as we're looking ahead to the Paris conference in December. We are here once again with a stellar debate panel and we're gonna get straight back into it. Now, we've already touched up on it. We've talked about how the ambition before the Paris conference is to build or to have a bottom-up approach as in each country should bring their own contributions to the negotiating table and then the idea is to bake them all into a wider deal. So far, though, the contributions that have been voiced by individual countries, they haven't been good enough in order to meet the two-degree target or to meet the target to limit climate change to two degrees. So my question to the panel is, how do you raise ambitions and how do you encourage countries to be braver and to be bolder? Lohofa Buse, I want to ask you as the host of COP21. What are your thoughts? First, I think that the companies and more generally the civil society can help because if they are convinced that it is a necessity, the politicians will have to deliver. And the decision in Paris will be taken by politicians because people will vote. That's the first thing. Second, as we've said a few moments ago, every single country will have to put its own contribution. Already we know that some countries or continents are in the vanguard. For instance, Europe has taken, in October, a decision which is good, which is in line with the ambition we can have. There are new elements. The agreement which has been passed between US and China is quite new. Obviously, when calculation will be made, we shall see if it is enough. But it's brand new if we compare with what was the situation a few years ago. And my understanding is that when everybody will have put publicly its own contribution, there will be expertise. There will be calculation which will be made by different elements. Yourself, Christina, you will have to make expertise. And then we shall see exactly where we are. And it will be, you know, Paris, it's not only the end of something, at the beginning of something, a new impetus. And I think it will not be done within one minute. But it's a major shift, and it's the beginning of a new awareness. President Calderon, you've been speaking about the economic argument to reach a climate change deal. How do you persuade countries, though, that they need to get on board with those ideas? And do you think that that argument that you presented before will be enough? Well, the point is the argument we have so far have not been enough. In the sense, talking about the consequences of climate change, it is really bold, but it has not been enough in order to mobilize people in governments and decisions. If I talk to the people in France, and remember them, the heat wave some years ago that killed thousands of people in France, especially old, elder people, and talk about the extreme events related to weather. From Philippines, the typhoon killed more than 6,000 people. So the extreme events are present. Are those events bold enough to persuade people? Maybe yes, but some minutes, some moments. And then the government say, well, me as president, me as prime minister, I have elections in two years, and these guys are talking about weather in 50 years. Well, just possible to the next one. No, I'm talking that on top of the environmental arguments, we need to provide economic alternatives and even social alternatives. Think about China. China, by tradition, was a very difficult country in order to get the Chinese people into the table. However, it is clear, for instance, the air pollution in Beijing, which, according with the new climate economy report, caused thousands of people with diseases and premature deaths, for instance, and economic damages. More than 11% of GDP in Beijing is lost by these kind of premature deaths. Well, these kind of phenomena associated with climate are moving and pressing, probably decision makers in China, to get the right direction. And this agreement between China and the United States is completely new in the landscape. No, China needs alternatives, for instance, to face out the coal, the production with coal, with renewable, and need support to recover forestry and need support for a lot of things. And if I talk about China, I'm talking about sub-Saharan African countries, they need economic support and they can provide, for instance, process to recover the landscape or the forestry there, as long as we can build an agreement in which there is an exchange and negotiations in which, yes, it establishes a commitment as less developed country, but at the same time, receives some kind of support. Middle country like Mexico or Brazil or Indonesia, we can do things, we must do things. And actually, we have done in Mexico, we established the first law that establishing mandatory goals for climate change and carbon emission reductions, and Mexico could improve. Renewable energy is providing new alternatives for the people, companies, even in the mining sector. Companies are switching towards solar energy and solar energy is providing energy for mining companies 40% cheaper than the traditional utility. So my point is, there are huge economic opportunities, only, for instance, energy efficiency. Energy efficiency will fix more than half of the change we need to do in energy. And renewable, renewable is 80% cheaper than eight years ago, especially solar. So the opportunities are there. Economic opportunities. If we can manage the environmental arguments, but on top of that, the economic opportunities, decision makers would say, well, it's not exactly a sacrifice. Actually, business community here in Davos, instead of thinking, how can I make more profit, which is valid, at least it, we can say, you can make money. If you jump into the new economy, even the government take the right public policy decisions. Fakisibisma, do you think the businesses are ready to listen to that? Are they willing to listen to that? Do they get that message? Well, let me even go a step further and put the ball in the middle so that the politicians in December, in Paris, can make the next step. I think we need to continue with awareness and politicians need awareness by their voters because otherwise the politicians come in a difficult situation. That's one. Second thing, I think, and as companies, we are advocating that we need a price on carbon. We need a price on carbon, preferentially in the whole world. And there might be local differences, but we need to have a price on carbon. And we said today's oil price, which is lower, that is very relevant. Because where it's competitive in technology is not only where it's competitive, but it's also a matter of convention. We had one time in history that we did not pay for labor. It's called slavery. And we changed the convention. And we need to change the convention also that we need to pay for pollution and that carbon has a price. That's the second point. The third point, and as companies, we are saying that a price on carbon, even with a floor, and that is an offer we can do as companies to the politicians. Now, you need to make legislation, but we even, as a set of companies said, that is a wise thing to do. The third thing we need to do is pushing further alternative technologies. Solar, much more can be done in solar. Second generation biofuels, you're losing agriculture waste. We have a lot of that. And sometimes that needs investment in technology. Sometimes that needs different regulations and policies to make those new forms of energy really viable. For us, I would say, let's create more transparency in the financial world. Where have we invested our money in? In pension funds, in banks, et cetera. How much is fossil-linked, how much is not fossil-linked? I'm not saying that you should invest here or there. Let's first create transparency where our money is. And then maybe the fifth thing is setting targets. Of course, we need to set targets. But the problem, I think, in Copenhagen was, we over-focused only on setting targets. And let's be honest, Mother Earth is not helped by only setting targets. Mother Earth is helped if we just take actions and make next steps. And many of us are ready to go. Christiana Figueres, what's your sense and what's your opinion on that? Setting targets and the need for steady targets, medium-term, short-term, long-term? Well, I don't think that they're mutually exclusive. I don't think FICA means that they're mutually exclusive. You have to do both things at the same time, right? And we're all adults. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We do have to have action right now because if we don't start this ball rolling, we're not going to get to any long-term destination. But we also need to know where we're going. And we do it in our everyday lives, right? When we get on my bicycle or my Prius car or whatever, I usually know where I'm going. And if I'm going on a long path where I don't know the road, which I usually don't, I set the GPS and it tells me where I'm going and how long it's going to take me. Well, it's the same thing, right? I don't get into the car only with the documents that I need for my meeting and making sure that the tank is filled because I know that I need the tank and I need the other battery also working for many both batteries. But you have to get into the car with both things. You have to get in with your action that you have right now, as well as knowing where you're going, how long it's going to take you, and how much is it going to cost you. And then, if you know all of that, then as governments, because the government's gonna have to set all that scenario up, then governments should actually stand away to set the right incentives and let the private sector get us to the final destination in the most effective way. My greatest story about this is New York. I was in New York at the Secretary General's summit a couple of months ago. And for those of you who are there, you know it is absolutely crazy traffic. So I put myself in the middle of the street endangering my life because I was desperate for a taxi. Finally get a taxi, jump into the taxi, and I'm struggling to figure out where I'm going. I don't have my documents on me and she goes, Madam, where are you going? And I say, well, you know, I'm sorry, I'll figure out in a minute, but I know I'm going uptown, can you start going uptown? And he turns around to me and he goes, Lady, tell me exactly where you're going and I will get you there faster and cheaper for you. Well, that's a lesson from the universe, isn't it? That's what we need to know. We have to get into the car, but we also need to know where we're going. So the two things need to go hand in hand and that is what's going to allow us, the efficiency and the technology development and the cost efficiency to get us there. I just want to back the tape a little bit. Fika Sibismar also has talked about the need from the business perspective of a global framework when it comes to carbon pricing. We can talk for a very long time, indeed, exactly how a carbon pricing model would look like and we don't have enough time to do that in this debate. I still want to ask, though, Laurent Fabius, do you think that there will be a global framework for carbon pricing as part of the Paris deal or is that just wishful thinking? I will have a diplomatic answer. I'm not sure it will be done in Paris, but I think that it's absolute necessity and we have to explain and to show by experience that it works. Not only in some companies or some economic sectors, but in some regions. You have regions where they apply that. There can be some differences, but step by step we have to go into the direction and I will completely admit the story of the taxi. With Christina, knowing that we have to take an electric taxi, don't you remember? No, no, it's part and parcel of the necessity, carbon pricing. There is another necessity, another actor, which is very important, which is not represented here. It's our local authorities everywhere because companies are very important, governments are important because they vote, but many and maybe most of the decisions in this sector will be taken by the local authority, regions, towns and we have to push them to go into the direction. Michel, yes. What are your thoughts? Well, you know, there is probably a lot of goodwill and we all agree. That's probably, by the way, the problem of a debate where everybody agrees. So there's not a lot of debate we discuss about the methods. There is something in which we have an interesting experience. It's the entrance of natural catastrophe. We perfectly know that not all natural catastrophe are consequence of climate change. In earthquakes, it's not the consequence of climate change. But what is interesting and to leave it sad to observe and that's probably one of the reason of the awareness also is that three quarters of the large catastrophe which happened on this planet are simply uninsured. They're not known by the financial sector. So there is not an awareness about what is happening. And I must say the visibility of the country would do take the responsibility to assume financially what may be the consequences of natural catastrophe which are very often, if it's drought, if it's floods, consequence of climate change, the visibility of the goodwill of these countries is, in my view, too low. Mexico is one of the first country we decided at government level to take an entrance about their own infrastructure and their own people if something is going badly. It's earthquake and wind. But I believe that a piece of pressure would make sense and in all fairness, I believe that something which will go in a little bit like what the rating agencies are doing in matters of financial solidity of the countries, if something would happen in the same sense about awareness and financial readiness on how to deal with these kind of extreme events, country by country, I believe it would improve the visibility of the countries which show goodwill. And without that kind of pressure, and it can be pierced pressure, I believe it would be a bit too easy for us from the business to pass the baby to the political level and to simply say, okay, try to agree on something on which actually we do follow your good intentions, but we expect you to give us more or less the rules. So a kind of pierced pressure at political level between countries wouldn't be too bad. Philippe Calvaron, by the way, ladies and gentlemen, we're gonna start taking questions in a moment or so, but I still want to gauge your view on what we just heard from Michel years. The point is this, carbon tax or any way to price carbon must be an economic signal to the players, regardless the amount of money you can raise, regardless if the tax is a net tax or it's a neutral one, meaning that you can put the carbon tax and withdraw all the kind of taxes, for instance labor tax. But anyway, the point is the society and the investors need clear economic signals and we have not just a kind of signals. In the moment in which the governments establish clear signals saying we are going to follow this low carbon pathway. In that moment a lot of investors will jump into the new economy because currently in this uncertainty they are only following a strategy of wait and see. They are seated in defense if I can say that. And we need to mobilize, shake them in order to jump into the field. And the only way to do that is to produce certainty coming from the government. Meanwhile, for instance an energy company will invest in green economy, renewables, and we'll try to hedge its money and will invest in great economies as well. And that will increase the cost of financing such kind of investment. It's going to delay the decisions in the company. It's going to increase the cost for everyone. So we need to decide one way, you know, in the future this will be the economy. By the half of this century, I'm very sure I can bet the economy will move towards low carbon pot. But the problem is if we do so too late, it's going to be honestly too late for the planet. If we don't act in the next 10 years, it's going to be too late. For such a degree, the earth increased less than one degree in 130 years, less than one degree. And I agree, not all the extreme events, weather events are related with climate change. A lot of them are in the future with four degrees. Four degrees, imagine what is going to happen. If the Antarctic and Groland are melt, even in next century, the level of the sea will increase at least two meters. Is that a catastrophe or not? Is it going to be climate change or not? But forget about it, it's going to be a massive problem. We need to change now. And the way to do that is we need to provide the signals. Carbon tax will be a very powerful thing. It's like a lack in the street. All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to start taking questions from the audience. Please make me aware, if you have a question, we have some roving microphones in the room. You, sir, in the second row. And as I say, please make sure that your question is actually a question and make it succinct and brief. My question is to Mr. Philip Calderon. India is a great example. The Indian government has just announced 160 gigawatt of solar and wind commitment equivalent to 200 billion. That right policy, government policy, can attract a lot of right investments by the private sector. We wanted your opinion. I attended G20 under your leadership and there was a commitment made at G20 as well as Rio 20 that developed nations would make huge supports to the developing nations in making that dream reality. What's been the progress, sir? Well, that is important, but a good question. But Prime Minister Modi, if I understand, he talked about he was dreaming to establish solar cells in each single house in India and the Puruse family. And that's fantastic. But thinking in India, for instance, in India made one big change. When I was a child, a symbol of progress is to have one fixed telephone line in each home. Mexico had never one single fixed line in each house, India either. But there is no sense. Technology make this big change and it's completely unnecessary. Any single home has a mobile phone. And that could happen with electricity, for instance. Do we need these very expensive and polluting transmission grills or we can provide electricity coming from each single poor house in India through solar panels? It's completely feasible. It's affordable. It's convenient. It's profitable. If you have a company and want to make business, don't jump into oil business because it's a risky business these days. Jump into renewable businesses and go to India and get supported from the government and the international community, as you were saying. OK, next question. In the third row. The gentleman. Lars Jusserson, do you think the current oil price is a blessing or is it really a problem? Who is your question director at, the entire panel? Who feels the need to answer that question, Fika? Of course, the current oil price makes it for renewables less competitive at once in half a year time. Therefore, a carbon pricing, I think, is the right moment. And what you see now is, in this movement of oil prices and development of technology, and as I said already, new technologies need to be stimulated, sometimes by technology development, sometimes by policies. And what we see here, target setting is important. We need to move forward, like Christina is saying, but companies are willing now to step up. And I would only say, is this not the present for the politicians? And imagine you let this moment go and you do not make a deal in December. Is that not a great opportunity? We miss and we let go and it's not a responsibility for all of us to do that. And companies are willing to commit themselves. I would say, don't waste that moment. Cristiana Figueiras. You know, I've thought a lot about this oil prices and I think it's both a threat and an opportunity. It is a threat because of what Fika said, that some of the renewable energy projects that are not completely bedded down because they don't have a signed PPA or because they don't have the investor group that is already completely committed to it are certainly being delayed. At the same time, at the same time, the low oil price, what it has done is it's already beginning to take off the market all of the very, very expensive oil projects. So just in the past three to four weeks, we have four projects, very expensive projects whose concession has been returned by the oil and gas companies to Greenland because they are no longer feasible. So you're already beginning to see that the expensive oil exploration, which is Deepsea and Tardig, Tarsans, all of those, that whole category, which is what we call the stranded asset argument is already no longer theory, but it's actually already reality, right? So those assets are already beginning to be taken off the table, which is very good for climate and is very good because it opens more space for renewables. At the same time, all of those renewable projects that actually do have their financials already bedded down are moving forward. The amazing thing is that the renewable energy industry, certainly the solar and certainly the wind are now so mature that they are standing on their own two feet, despite the fact that oil is currently temporarily low, but will go back up. And so I completely agree with Fika. This is a fantastic opportunity to take these moments of low oil prices and do a couple of things. Remove fossil fuel subsidies. Nobody would notice it right now. This is the moment to do it. This is totally the moment to do it. And for those governments in particular that are having now cost savings because of the low oil price, this is the perfect opportunity to take those cost savings and invest them into the infrastructure of the future because that's the one that is going to give them very predictable pricing in the future. We know that exposure to oil and gas is always going to be a volatile price. Renewable energy has one price, zero. Do you have a short comment on this? Yes, on top of that, I see another opportunity. I wonder if it was really a shocking issue to renewable because 20 years ago, more than 25% of the electricity came from oil. These days, less than 5%. So more of the electricity related with fossil fuels is coming from coal and natural gas. And honestly, in the markets that are working properly, natural gas is completely coupled from price of oil. And this is the case from North America where the relevant change in shell gas and shell oil. So price of oil going down 50% of even more, natural gas didn't. Even increased with a teeny margin because there are completely different markets. Here in Europe, we happen the same. Now could be in the short term, some common movements, but it's not a problem with the market. It's a problem of the regulation. Why? Because the price of natural gas is attached with the price of oil, which is a big mistake of the regulators. Honestly, it's going to be the couple and the impact in renewable will be lesser than you are expecting, honestly. On top of the opportunity that you are talking about. All right, let's take one more question in the front row. Thank you very much. So I have a question for Foreign Minister Fabius. Paris, the Paris Agreement. It's going to be a room with or house with many rooms, flexible bottom up. How do we know that the agreement actually does something beyond what countries are going to do anyway? How are we going to know that? How are we going to convince the public that this huge effort is actually delivering value added? Well, I think first, if and when we can have legally binding agreement, it is in line with the maximum two degrees. And therefore, if you compare that with the business as usual rhythm, it will be an advantage first. Second, and it's a tricky subject, but an important one, when Paris takes place, we shall have rough idea about the addition of the national contributions. We shall know where we are. And my understanding is that if we are up compared to the two degrees, there will take place necessary reaction, necessary mechanism in order, maybe not right now, but step by step to get back to the two degrees. Third, we rely on the actions taken by companies, taken by region, taken by local authorities, and new technologies being brought for this opportunity. Therefore, all in all, all that will bring something. There is one other point I would like to mention, which is rather psychological and political. We have to show that the climate change, I prefer to go that climate disruption, because change, sometimes it's viewed positively. If you say to somebody in the northern part of France that there will be a climate change, you think that you will live in Côte d'Azur. And therefore, the reality, it's climate disruption. But the climate disruption, it's not for 2100. It's for right now. We have to explain to people, and they're aware of that, that it's right now. What you said about Beijing, it's reality. I have inaugurated a few months ago, Lysée, a school in Beijing. And I will always have that in my eyes. We were here with officials delivering beautiful speeches and the children who were in front of us, all of them were the masques. And you know, this sort of climax, it was so. And therefore, it's for now. We have the solutions, technical, hopefully financial, and it will help growth. If we're able to convince people, Michel Yes, I want to ask you, do you think that we're building up expectations too much, perhaps, before the Paris meeting? That's not an easy question. First, you have to start with expectation if you want to achieve something. If you don't want to achieve anything, definitely you can start with a kind of pessimism. What I'm a little bit afraid is that there is apparently a kind of intellectual agreement. There is probably also an emotional agreement around the table. And probably what is concerned to me is that I've experienced that very often in Davos that you have this kind of agreement. But when it comes to the reality, it is more complicated, it's more political, you need to find some compromise. You know, politics is the science of the possible and that's the reason why it's also admirable because it's not that obvious to bring 196 countries to agree. So I'm positive, definitely, but I believe that a little bit of peer pressure, as I said before, would add to the positive emotion that we are showing here. I don't think that everything will happen the way we want to see it happen if there is not a little bit of pressure and it must go beyond awareness. It must probably go towards a kind of very official pricing of the decision that we are taking and the decision that we are not taking by people who are credible. And that will allow people to judge the consequence of a Paris meeting. And it's possible. But I, again, I like emotion, I like ambition. I must recognize that humanity seems to react a little bit more on peer pressure than on emotion. President Calderon, we don't have a lot of time left, but so I just want to get your closing thoughts. Well, an agreement is a must for a human being. An agreement is possible along the French diplomacy, which is some of the best diplomas in the world, who put itself in everybody else's shoes, and that is the idea. Try to understand less developed countries, try to understand the oil producer countries, trying to understand the middle class countries, trying to understand China, India, the United States, Canada, Europe. And if we are able to match the promised land of economic growth with the help of climate change, doing the right thing, there is a solution. It is difficult, but I hope that human being could be fixed its own future. Christiana Figueres? I'm equally as hopeful. I also do not underestimate the challenges that we have ahead of us. The president here sitting here, we even, even the French diplomatier, I think is going to be challenged, but we're delighted to be in the hands and supporting the French diplomatier. But it really, we have to understand what we're trying to do here, right? We are trying to change the paradigm and the path that we've had for 150 years. It is not a small task. It is not a small task. And therefore, there's not going to be a silver bullet the day after we finish Paris. It's not going to be everybody standing up and clapping and saying, we've solved climate change. No, that's not the way it's going to be, but we do have to revert that. What we have to do is ensure that what is in place is going to give us, reverting the tendency that we have right now, the trajectory of increasing emissions. We have to get to the point where we decrease. That is fundamentally what we have to do. We will use carbon pricing as a very powerful tool. We will use peer pressure as a very powerful tool. We will use businesses because they have to help. We will, frankly, this is so complicated and it's so huge that we need every single piece of help that we can. But as President Calderon said, we cannot afford to not get this agreement. So I am cautiously confident, but very, very encouraged by the number of people, companies, governments, financial sector, everybody who are constantly coming up and saying, we're in, what can we do to help? It's fantastic. By far, by far, the great majority want a solution because they know that, A, we can't afford one, but also because they know it's the pathway toward future economic growth. So the story is only positive. What's there not to like? All right, we're gonna wait and see, I suppose, in 10 months in Paris. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much once again for taking part in this debate. Thank you to all of you in the audience for turning up today. I suppose we haven't debated much whether or not there is a need for a climate change deal. I think there is agreement on this stage that there is a need for a climate change deal, but to a certain extent, I suppose that is a good sign that there seems to be a pretty unified mass when it comes to both business and politics to reach a climate change deal in Paris in December. We need awareness, we need peer pressure, we need transparency for business so that business leaders know what's next, so to speak. We'll see if Paris manages to deliver that. I wanna thank you for watching at home. Thank you for watching, Franz van Kert, and stay with us.